SNYDER v. STATE (2023)

Snyder claims the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence relating to a North Carolina crime under the similar fact evidence rule, section 90.404(2)(a). In the underlying case, Snyder was accused of shooting and killing a man. In the North Carolina crime, Snyder admitted to shooting at a man two days earlier. The State put forward an expert in firearms who determined the bullets from both crimes were fired from the same gun.

Section 90.404(2)(a) allows similar fact evidence to be admitted “when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.” The North Carolina case was relevant to prove identity, which was a contested issue at trial. Admission of this evidence was also not unfairly prejudicial under section 90.403. “[A]lmost all evidence introduced during a criminal prosecution is prejudicial to a defendant,” and “a trial judge must balance the import of the evidence with respect to the case of the party offering it against the danger of unfair prejudice.” Sexton v. State, 697 So. 2d 833, 837 (Fla. 1997). We affirm the trial judge's balancing here; this evidence was important and its admission was not to show bad character.

We reject Snyder's second evidentiary argument without further discussion.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Kelsey, Nordby, and Long, JJ., concur.